Robkel Liquors Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robkel Liquors Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

80 A.D.2d 857, 439 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10693

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 857 (Robkel Liquors Inc. v. State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robkel Liquors Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 80 A.D.2d 857, 439 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a penalty imposed by the State Liquor Authority upon petitioner’s plea of “no contest” to having violated subdivision 2 of section 101-bb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law on two different dates, the penalty being a 10-day suspension (“3 days remitted on ‘No Contest’ plea”) and a bond forfeiture, the authority appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 30, 1979, which modified the penalty to a fine of $2,100, plus a bond forfeiture. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed on the merits, and penalty imposed reinstated. On the record before us, the penalty imposed by the authority was not shocking to one’s .sense of fairness and should not have been disturbed (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We note that in the absence of a cross appeal by petitioner, its claim that subdivision 2 of section 101-bb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is unconstitutional is not properly before us. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a penalty imposed by the State Liquor Authority upon petitioner’s plea of “no contest” to having violated subdivision 2 of section 101-bb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law on two different dates, the penalty being a 10-day suspension (“3 days remitted on ‘No Contest’ plea”) and a bond forfeiture, the authority appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 30, 1979, which modified the penalty to a fine of $2,100, plus a bond forfeiture. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed on the merits, and penalty imposed reinstated. On the record before us, the penalty imposed by the authority was not shocking to one’s .sense of fairness and should not have been disturbed (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We note that in the absence of a cross appeal by petitioner, its claim that subdivision 2 of section 101-bb of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is unconstitutional is not properly before us. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 857, 439 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robkel-liquors-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1981.